FoxPro On Linux, Drama Ensues

bltfast32 writes "I don't know how many people have been following this, but this is definitely worth keeping an eye on. Whil Hentzen, prominent FoxPro and Linux advocate, has received some heat lately for publishing a HOWTO in the March 2003 FoxTalk issue for running Visual FoxPro 8.0 on Linux with WINE. Of course, the aforementioned heat, is coming from Redmond. Here is a link to a nice summary of the interactions by Whil." That summary mentions the Register article online here. bltfast32 also points to another article which requires registration.

Comments

No surprise

[Gefiltefish11]

To anyone who has followed MS's track record (as highlighted so vociferously here on /. over the past few years), this should come as no surprise at all.

Even if it may result in more use and sales of their product, the name of the game is control and MS values that, it seems, more than potential profits. In fact, it probably costs them more dollars for their lawyers to draft various emails and notices than it would if a few Linux nerds run MS software. In fact, the latter probably costs them zip.

Thinking about this a bit more, it seems that control is the name of the game in most of industry --MPAA and RIAA certainly included!

Re:No surprise

[Descartes]

In fact, it probably costs them more dollars for their lawyers to draft various emails and notices than it would if a few Linux nerds run MS software

are you kidding? This is 100% about profits. Microsoft knows it makes some great products (like FoxPro) but the majority of their market share is in the OS, which is not nearly as well made. Microsoft knows if they let people start using their good products on other OSs that they'll lose their OS market share. Why bother using a buggy, and insecure OS when you can get a much better product for free, assuming you're willing to put in the effort to use linux.

Micosoft is not just worried about a few linux nerds, they're worried about companies doing the math to figure out the difference in cost between paying someone to get their system working in linux and the cost of paying for MS licenses. As a linux nerd I have no personal need to run MS software and potentially violate their EULA, but I know that companies are willing to pay me to do it if it helps their bottom line.

Re:No surprise

[arkanes]

No, it's not. Theoretically, an EULA is a legally binding document - you're saying it's reasonable for a company to be able to (legally) require you to use a specific OS, whether or not it's required from a technical standpoint (it's obviously not, in this case, since it works). That's absurd, especially when the company in question is an OS company. It's tied directly to all the old arguments about monopolies and abusive behavior. They're perfectly justified in refusing support to anyone who's trying to run it under a non-authorized system, but bringing legal force to bear on someone who is doing so, or even helping other people do so, is utterly ridiculous.

Re:No surprise

[Archie Steel]

Well, in that case, they should just not offer any support for it. That's seems like a simple, reasonable (and legal) proposition. Here's the product: if you don't use it within such framework, then we're not responsible if something goes wrong. Except that in this case, of course, MS isn't responsible if things go wrong even if you use the software within the suggested framework. So it is a control issue - they just want to continue to impose their monopoly, like they've done in the past.

Re:No surprise

[Dr. Zowie]

It would be entirely reasonable for them to restrict the use of that application (via the EULA) to avoid deployment on other OS's, due to the unpredictable issues that will pop up.

Actually, no, it wouldn't be. Yes, attempting to regulate use of the application is one way to solve the problem. No, it's far from the best way.

In California in the mid-1990s, there was a problem that insurance companies were getting hit hard by large court awards to the families of motorcyclists. It seems that a lot of motorcyclists were getting killed in collisions with cars, where the cars were at fault. The solution that was adopted was to require all riders to wear motorcycle helmets -- in other words, to assume a paternalistic attitude toward the riders. The correct solution (in the sense of being minimally intrusive while solving the problem) would have been to legally limit the liability of car drivers who hit helmetless motorcyclists.

Likewise, restricting the operating system is a bad move from the point of view of the customer: a better solution (for the customer) is just to refute any warranty or support for other platforms than Windows. The only reason to try restricting the output environment is to preserve Microsoft's monopoly, at the expense of the customer.

Re:No surprise

[Crispy Critters]

Control, however, is extremely important when it comes to brand reputation, and is perfectly justifiable in many cases. Consider a software vendor who has released a product specifically for a certain class of operating systems. It would be entirely reasonable for them to restrict the use of that application (via the EULA) to avoid deployment on other OS's, due to the unpredictable issues that will pop up.

I see the propaganda has succeeded and mind control is now complete.

It is not the slightest bit reasonable ever for a company to be able to control how you use their product after you have given them money in return for the right of such use.

To give a concrete example of why this is wrong, for those who don't find it obvious, imagine a company wants to distribute these executables to a restricted set of identical Linux boxes with the configuration carefully tested. There is no danger of damaging the reputation of the original framework; in fact this could only improve its reputation.

Your argument is the same one that would make all mp3 files illegal, because they may be related to illegal copying, or the outlawing of the DeCSS code because it might be used to make a forbidden copy.

Maintaining a remotely free society demands extreme scrutiny of such examples of prior restraint, restrictions based on a hypothetical damage with no proof that it ever had or would actually occur.

Re:No surprise

[4of12]

It would be entirely reasonable for them to restrict the use of that application (via the EULA) to avoid deployment on other OS's, due to the unpredictable issues that will pop up.

Would it?

It seems strange to me that software EULA should be so encumbered with these kinds of restrictions if one makes a comparison to automobiles.

In that case, the manufacturer doesn't restrict you to only drive on certains roads, or toll-roads, as the case may be.

Rather, it's understood, and usually described in the user's manual, that the automobile works best and has been test to work well on paved hard-surfaced roads. If you drive off-road, or on a non-recommeded road, then you assume responsibility for the consequences. Various warranties and legal protections are disclaimed.

Software should be treated similarly. You assume the risks and consequences if you use the software in unintended ways, but there shouldn't be some arbitrary restriction on how you may use it.

The only valid reason for tying Visual FoxPro to a particular OS like Windows is in the case of a systems integrator that assumes extra risk by tying together all of your systems and guaranteeing the whole kit and kaboodle will perform.

For MS to claim it is a systems integrator in this regard is, at the least, far-fetched.

Worse, their actions could be viewed very plausibly as a conflict of interest.

Re:No surprise

[RoLi]

Since the EULA is a legally binding document...

Well, anywhere where even the most basic consumer protection laws exist (= everywhere outside the USA), a contract that is agreed upon after the purchase was made is invalid and completely void.

Also, some courts in Germany have ruled that Microsoft has no right to legally bind an OS to a computer, the consumer must have the right to resell computer and OS-license seperately, so I guess they wouldn't have the right to bind FoxPro to Windows even if the EULA was legally binding.

But even in the USA, the pathetic remains of consumer protection should prevent Microsoft from legally binding Foxpro to Windows: Anti-Trust laws are pretty clear on that.

Let's say, for example, that a bug in FoxPro is found that represents a security risk - MS can use Windows Update and other means to get a patch out to their Windows-based customers, but what do they do for the WINE-rs? That's a loose end that I certainly wouldn't want to deal with...

This is so ridiculous, I can't believe it. Are you working for MS? This is such obvious nonsense - if that were true, MS would have to force Windows update on everyone, make sure everyone has an Internet connection and force every update down the throats of customers. (Yes, MS would certainly like it that way, sure.)

I would have to say

[greechneb]

That this was only a matter of time. I have this bad feeling before long, any microsoft products, or any software company that is in bed with microsoft will be checking during install to make sure that there is a valid windows license.

There will probably be a line in the EULA stating: It is illegal to run this program on a non-windows operating system.

I sure wouldn't put it past microsoft. I'm sure there would be ways around it, but then microsoft would have a great way to take anyone to court using wine to run windows software on linux.

- I'm very happy wearing my tinfoil hat!

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft's TCP stack was based on one of the *BSDs, and IE had its roots in Mosaic. There is no GNU-bitching about this, imagine that.

Re:Wait...

[Col. Klink (retired)]

> Isn't it part of Microsoft licensing that you must run the software under Microsoft's environment?

Wasn't MicroSoft convicted for antitrust violations? Isn't "tying" a violation of antitrust laws?

> I know that Linux and GNU software carries some terms of their own...

The GPL has absolutely no "use" restrictions. If you do not plan to redistribute GPL software, the GPL has absolutely no effect on you.

Re:Wait...

[Relic of the Future]

"I can't imagine any Open Source developer that would be that thrilled if Microsoft [...] copied our stuff into their stuff."

Then you don't understand many Open Source developers. You do know that Window's TCP stack is based on BSD, right?

Re:Wait...

[Glock27]

I know that Linux and GNU software carries some terms of their own, and I can't imagine any Open Source developer that would be that thrilled if Microsoft pulled a quid-pro-pro and copied our stuff into their stuff.

Lots of free software runs on Windows - gcc + toolchain, Mozilla, the Gimp, emacs and on and on...

This strikes me as ridiculous, but there is a nice alternative - don't use FoxPro. Perhaps initially painful, but in the end quite rewarding! ;-)

Isn't there any alternative that was actually designed to run on Linux?

I'd suggest one of the many DBs available for Linux + JDBC + Java 1.4x + NetBeans/Eclipse. :-)

Can GM stop Ford cars from using its oil filters?

[StandardCell]

No, not if they fit. It seems like a ridiculous assertion.

Yet this is precisely the same problem we have here with VFP and WINE. Erosion of rights in using a product. Maybe in future EULAs, Microsoft will prevent the use of the install CD case to hold open doors in offices with BSD servers.

Dumb? Yeah. But where will it stop?

Re:Wait...

[theLOUDroom]

I know that Linux and GNU software carries some terms of their own, and I can't imagine any Open Source developer that would be that thrilled if Microsoft pulled a quid-pro-pro and copied our stuff into their stuff. Isn't there any alternative that was actually designed to run on Linux?

Actually, they'd be thrilled (assuming the stuff is GLP'ed). That would mean the Microsoft would have to release the source code to whatever application they used it in.

Also, no one is talking about pirating MS software here. They're talking about using legally purchased copies of it on a non-MS operating system.

Re:Illegal Tying

[Alien Being]

Yes. The penalty is dinner with no dessert.

Re:The beast that won't die

[swb]

I had no idea VFP had such a following. So what is it about VFP that inspires so much devotion among its users?

I think the unflattering answer is there's a shitpile of small business applications written in Fox Pro by enterprising consultants that work well enough for the business owners who don't want to spend any more on them than they have to. They get sold periodic "updates" so they work with their new PCs sporting new OSs, but that's it.

I think the reason they never get ported to anything else is that nobody else can untangle the code in a timeframe that would make them any money, plus if they want periodic updates like new forms or something, FP is pretty easy to design them with where a web app or something would be a PITA.

bullshit

[RelliK]

Consider a software vendor who has released a product specifically for a certain class of operating systems. It would be entirely reasonable for them to restrict the use of that application (via the EULA) to avoid deployment on other OS's, due to the unpredictable issues that will pop up.

False. They can say "this product is designed to be used on system X; we will not support it if you use it on system Y". However, nothing gives them the right to demand that you use the product on system X, just like GM cannot demand that you have your car serviced only at Goodwrench. That is an abuse of monopoly, plain and simple.

Re:What?

[samael]

So some non-DB HR monkeys put together a badly documented database, therefore the language is at fault?

That doesn't make much sense to me.

Re:The beast that won't die

[The Bungi]

swb has a bit of it. Certainly there are thousands of VFP apps out there running in small and large businesses that are hard to port and get rid of (VFP redefined, IMO, the term "spaghetti code", even more so than VB).

But there's also a bit of what makes some software (BeOS, Amiga, vim, etc.) grab and keep a smallish but loving group of users that are willing to fight for their [tool|OS|whatever] and hold on for dear life.

VFP is unique among MS products in that regard. VB had a faithful following, but it was always too big and too loud and too contaminated by weekend "programmers" to have an effect over the company. VFP folks - they're the Mujahedin of Microsoft users. Trust me, you don't want end up surrounded in a newsgroup by six angry VFP knights in shining armor with issues and a grudge. Talk about flame wars.

I mentioned those Usenet threads in my original post - I'll eat my crow now but back then I thought they were on crack for being so vocal about a tool that everyone else saw as dying (like BSD *grin*). Plus, the "inside word" from Microsoft at the time (~1997) was that VFP was indeed going to be killed. Haha - Not.

That's life, I guess.